SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A.N. RAY, JJ.
Dr. Harkishan Singh, Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 430 of 1970, D/25-3-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Jagjit Singh Chawla, Advocate and M/s. K. L. Mehta and S. K Mehta, Advocates of M/s. K. L. Mehta and Co. for Appellant; Mr. H. L. Sibbal Advocate General for the State of Punjab (Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 1, M/s. V. C. Mahajan, S. S. Khanduja and V. P. Kohli Advocates, for Respondent No. 2.
Puniab Civil Medical Service Class I (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules - Rule 2 (c), 5, 6, 7 (1), 8 and 9 - Punjab Civil Medical Service – Selection – Promotion – Seniority - Appellant was appointed and confirmed in Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I with effect - Respondent No. 3 was confirmed in same Class I service - Time scale salary of Class I service with efficiency bar - A class I officer on promotion to selection grade is entitled - is a Fellow of Royal College of Surgeons - He obtained qualifications in various post graduate medical courses in England and America - He was serving Government of Uganda in Africa at a salary of Rs. 3000/- p.m. in a permanent pensionable post - Punjab Government in year offered him post of Civil Surgeon in Punjab Civil Medical Service expressed his willingness to accept post at a suitable salary - Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Chief Medical Officer in Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I in scale with a starting salary with such allowances as might be admissible under rules - He joined post with effect - Held, other contention on behalf of appellant was that should not have got seniority, over the appellant and respondent in selection grade - Prior to appointment to selection grade seniority list of Class I service to which appellant and two respondents belonged was not fixed because of representations made by various persons including appellant - Are not called upon to go into seniority list of Class I service because the only controversy now is with regard to seniority list of selection grade - High Court correctly expressed view that there are no specific rules in regard to fixation of seniority in selection grade in the case of a direct appointment - If there are no relevant rules with regard to fixation of seniority in case of a direct appointment to selection grade having been recruited by direct appointment earlier than appellant and seniority cannot be disturbed - That will be unjust - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
RAY, J.: This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 13 August, 1969 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
2. The appellant was appointed and confirmed in Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I with effect from 26 February, 1955. Respondent No. 3 Dr. S. S. Sekhon was confirmed in the same Class I service On 28 February, 1955. The time scale salary of Class I service is Rs. 600-40-800-50-900 with efficiency bar at Rs. 800/-. A class I officer on promotion to the selection grade is entitled to Rs. 1000/-.
3. Dr. Pritam Singh is a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. He obtained qualifications in various post graduate medical courses in England and America. In 1961 he was serving the Government of Uganda in Africa at a salary of Rs. 3000/- p.m. in a permanent pensionable post. The Punjab Government in the year 1961 offered him the post of Civil Surgeon in the Punjab Civil Medical Service. Dr. Pritam Singh expressed his willingness to accept the post at a suitable salary.
4. Respondent No. 2 Dr. Pritam Singh was appointed on 16 July, 1962 as Chief Medical Officer in the Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I in the scale of Rs. 800-50-1500 with a starting salary of Rs. 1000/- p.m. with such allowances as might be admissible under the rules. He joined the post with effect from 4 August, 1962. By an order of the Governor of Punjab dated 18 December, 1962 the post was directed to be in addition to the existing post of Civil Surgeons both in the selection grade and ordinary grade.
5. The Government of Punjab thereafter took steps of filling the post of the Chief Medical Officer, Chandigarh on a permanent basis through the Public Service Commission- A public notice inviting applications for the post was issued under the authority of the Commission in the month of April, 1963. Dr. Pritam Singh applied for the post. Neither the appellant nor respondent Dr. Sekhon applied for the post because they did not have the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post. Dr. Pritam Singh was selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The order of appointment by the Governor was issued on 10 May, 1963.
6. Dr. Pritam Singh was on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date on which he joined as Chief Medical Officer, namely, 4 August, 1962, and he was governed by the Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I Rules. On 30 August, 1963 a formal letter was issued to Dr. Pritwn Singh that the Governor of Punjab in consultation with the Punjab Public Service Commission had allowed Dr. Pritam Singh the grant of higher starting pay of Rs. 1250/- p.m. on his appointment as Chief Medical Officer on a regular basis in the time scale of Rs. 800-50-1500 with effect from 17 April 1963 as Principal Medical Officer, Chandigarh which was the name of the redesigned post of the Chief Medical Officer On 9 December, 1965 Dr. Pritwn Singh was confirmed with effect from 17 April, 1963 as Principal Medical Officer, Chandigarh.
7. On 20 October, 1966 the respondent Dr. Pritam Singh was appointed by the President of India in the selection grade of Punjab C1vil Medical Service in the scale of Rs. 1300-50-1600 with effect from 20 October, 1966.
8. The appellant impeached the order dated 20 October, 1966 appointing the respondent Dr. Pritam Singh in the selection grade to be in violation of the Punjab Civil Medical Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,1940 on two broad grounds; first, that the appointment to the selection grade of Punjab Civil Medical Service could be only by promotion from Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I and not by direct appointment, and, secondly, even if Dr. Pritam Singh could be appointed direct to the selection grade his seniority would be below that of the appellant and Dr. Sekhon.
9. When Dr. Pritam Singh was appointed to the selection grade he was placed at the bottom of the selection grade. The appellant and the respondent Dr. Sekhon were also appointed to the selection grade with effect fr
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.